yakbarber

Unlike the Internet, Microsoft did recognise the pivotal moment. But they made the wrong play… that and they’ve annoyed pretty much everybody with their products, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a successful company with such little good will from their community.

To fix Claude’s personality, first, invent the universe…

It never was. The US is under as much propaganda as NK they just refuse to recognise it from the inside, which is simply propaganda working.

I keep hearing we don’t know “how llm’s work”, in mean yes we know the algorithms but the WHY I suppose. I’m not sure if that’s really true, does the best researcher at OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini not know why it works? Would they say that?

Anyway these discussions always make me think we are too generous to humans. I know very few humans who are good at reasoning. It’s surprisingly hard to just think really hard through a problem. We mostly intuit, act, repeat. It’s a rare thing for someone to deeply reason.

The other problem I have with this is that we apply the word “reasoning” here because we haven’t really got another language for it, so we anthropomorphise the llm because that’s our reductive mental model and then complain that it’s not human enough.

If you miss it, maybe she does too. You can still do it even though she doesn’t need it

This is just human behaviour though. We're wired for "a lot of people who do X, also do Y". "this person does X, therefore they must do Y". Obviously, not all brown things are cows, but that's how it be, it's got nothing to do with ai.

we first need to agree the definition of consciousness, before we can start trying to attribute it to various animals and machines.

yes

and it's not just the end product, it's the process. China has built almost entirely automated car factories. They're already 10+ years ahead of what's happening in the US/Europe.

Totally agree, this protectionism killed the Australian car industry because eventually you just can’t compete.

That's aweful, only senators should be allowed to do that!

it's a solution looking for a problem and google are desperate to stay relevant there.

We just don't need to search as much. But I _do_ still want to search sometimes, it's still a valid use case, just not as important as it used to be.

But when a do search, I want simple, relevant, external search results so that I can go straight to those good sources. Google isn't satisfied with their returns on that though.

the thing that bothers me is I don't usually want this mode. When I search, I am not looking for what google thinks, I am looking for what other sources think.

can you share that prompt?

this seems disingenuous. even if your premise is true (which i don't think it is), it only really holds for the first few endpoints. most systems have many, and the models are very good at copying established patterns to the point that you wouldn't normally have to re-explain every detail for every endpoint. so you might be right for the first (you're not), but you're definitely wrong for the next 50.

let's say aliens land. we learn to talk to them. they're super smart - smarter than us. would we say they're conscious? why? because they're organic. I think that's the root of the criteria many folk are trying to express.

1. passes turing test

2. is organic

I'm not saying it's correct or even that I agree with it, but that's what it boils down to.